Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:21AM
from the more-time-to-work-through-their-shame dept.

SonicSpike sends word that Florida has changed how law enforcement deals with teenagers who send racy pictures to each other over their phones. Quoting CNN:
"Before Saturday, a Florida teenager who sent or received nude photos or video could have been charged with a felony and forced to register as a sex offender. But a new law, recognizing the proliferation of cell phones and computers, eases the penalties for 'sexting' infractions. A first offense is punishable by eight hours of community service or a $60 fine; the second is a misdemeanor and the third is a felony. ... Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone."

This whole law is fucking retarded in regards to teen sexting. Kids are going to be playful, curious, and they are going to send nude pics of themselves, and it's ridiculous to call it a crime. If the pics they send are of themselves, then it's none of the governments damn business. Leave it for the parents to take care of. Classifying it as a crime with tis graduated 3 strikes rule is over the top. What exactly is it suppose to accomplish. It is a distortion of the law to call it child porn to begin with. Instead of making exceptions for self pics from teens, they have again done the wrong thing, albeit it to a very slight lesser degree, instead of just putting an exception in to begin with.

It was intended to stop trade in child-porn - they thought a simple "the creation, distribution or acquisition of any semi-naked image of a juvenile under the age of 17" law should result in both the photographer and the customer being sent to a high-security federal penitentiary for life.

That was when you needed expensive professional camera equipment, access to commercial CD manufacturing, print facilities to make and distribute any kind of static or moving imagery.

Yes, but the problem is that now that they DO know that this is what happens, and it's relatively harmless, they refuse to fix the law with a little sanity and instead seem totally incompetent and out of touch with reality.

But if a 16 year old sends a photo to another 16 year old with the consent of both, what business is that of law enforcement and how in hell should either be guilty of *any* criminal offense, whether it was the first, second, or third time? The new law is still absurd.

I'm pretty sure the way 3 strikes rules work is that the penalty applies the third time you are convicted.

Presumably this means you have already been in front of a judge *twice* who has told you that this behavior will result in a felony charge. Whether or not you agree with a 17 year old taking nude photos of themselves being a felony-worthy offence, someone who gets caught doing it after being in court for it twice before has only themselves to blame. The law is on the books and actively enforced, so until that law is changed you had better follow the damn thing (and I wouldn't suggest risking sex offender status and a felony in order to try your luck at getting the supreme court to change the law).

I'm pretty sure the way 3 strikes rules work is that the penalty applies the third time you are convicted. Presumably this means you have already been in front of a judge *twice* who has told you that this behavior will result in a felony charge.

You can't get all three in one go, but the strikes are per charge not per case so you can use up the first two. And strikes you got as a juvenile count the rest of your life, so worst case you'd better not steal a pack of gum the rest of your life or face 25 to life. Look at the three strikes law page on wikipedia for some outrageous examples.

The bestiality thing is a bit of a joke, because it was already effectively illegal under broader animel cruelty laws - and with the precident to back up that interpretation too. Making a law to explicitly outlaw it is really just moral grandstanding - publicly attacking some icky sex thing to boost the Family Friendly credentials of a few politicians, even though it doesn't actually change a thing.

They are getting a little less evil but only for "crimes" that could accidentally impact the lives of white, middle class kids. The only reason this law is getting a second look is that it happened to hit "good kids." The laws that impact brown or black people still stand.

Accept the fact that teen's bodies are flooded with hormones, and they only think of sex for about 36 hours each day. (Yes, I know, for children and adults, there are only 24 hours in each day - teens live in a different continuum!) The little bastards are always going to be thinking of sex, they speak sex, they look sex, they breathe sex. Pragmatism dictates that we leave them the hell alone, to deal with their own demons, in their own way.

If YOU don't want to see pictures of naked teens, then DON'T LOOK AT A TEEN'S PHONE!

Oh the whole "save teh childrenz!" thing is royally fucked and we have been way past sane for quite awhile. Some examples include the guy who wrote the "pro pedo" book that is now rotting in jail. Nobody accused him of touching anybody, no pics or anything, just his thoughts and opinions on paper. I seem to remember someone writing about a time when people could be arrested for their thoughts. There is also the guy doing prison time for writing his fantasies in his journal which his shrink told him to do, another thoughtcrime. Then there is the guy who went to jail for dirty Jap cartoons, again no kids, just pen and ink. as a friend that works in the state crime lab told me these laws are so badly written you could draw a stick figure and scribble "nekked kid" on it and theoretically be guilty of child pron!

For one a little closer to TFA how is THIS for fucked up: In several states I can marry a girl as young as 14 with their parents permission. I can marry her, bang her any way my little heart desires, again completely legal, but if I take a picture of my wife naked I'd be a child pornographer!

This whole damned thing has become another red scare, only instead of commies we see pervs behind every tree. what we seriously need is some common sense laws but sadly politicians have learned they can stir up the rabble and get more votes by pushing the "save teh childrenz!" button.

The other terrible thing about the sex offender registries is all the horrible regulations one has to live with if you end up on the list. My dad has a friend who lost the lawyer lottery (and admittedly wasn't smart enough to realize it at the time) and was advised to plead guilty to a sex crime when his ex wife convinced their daughter to claim he had touched her inappropriately in the middle of their ugly divorce. He now isn't allowed to live within 5000 yards of any schools or daycare facilities. He just rented an apartment and was told after moving in that somebody living nearby is running a daycare in their house so he has 10 days to find a new place to live. There is a database of daycares you can check before you move somewhere, and the database said his new address was in the clear. It was only after he paid his non-refundable deposit and moved all of his stuff into the place that the sheriff came by and said "Oops, turns out there IS a daycare nearby. Too bad, get out within 10 days or you go to jail for a felony. have a nice day!"

Terrorist watch, no-fly, felony, and sex offender lists are the new yellow stars. Anybody who claims America doesn't have classes or a caste system is either misinformed or lying.

Depends on the lawyer. Public defenders are generally kept overworked to the point where they just don't have time to make a defence. That's the way the state likes it - every time a person gets found innocent of a criminal charge, it makes the police look like idiots. Unacceptable.

I was convinced to plead guilty to a crime I didn't commit by a public defender. Terrible mistake but I was under 18 and my record expunged. He gave me other terrible advice as well for courtroom conduct. Apparently acting pleasant and smiling only pisses off the judge.
That's what I get for having been a poor 15 y/o minority kid with no knowledge of the court system and relying on a lawyer for legal advice. He told me it would be much worse if I tried to fight it... turns out my accuser never showed up, n

You're a moron. Parents who don't empathise with kids, even those not their own, have the genetic problem, not the ones who do think about the children.

Strawman.

The OP was talking about going overboard, where children are overprotected, and emotions become out of control and override thinking. That's what people are talking about when they use the phrase "Think of the children". We've got a whole set of people in this country that'll do that over and over and over again. Letting your emotions run your en

What's ironic about it? One is a victimless "crime" where two teenagers exchange pics of themselves, with their mutual consent to have the pics of the other one. You might want to have laws against forwarding those pictures, or adults soliciting pictures from teens, but where exactly is the harm of two teens swapping nekkid pics?

The other one is a crime where a person gets to feel inferior due to their sex, religion, color of skin, sexual preference or whatever else counts as a minority group these days. Th

The law doesn't always make sense. I got to see a police representative come to give teens a school lecture on sexting a couple of weeks ago - and he confirmed to them what many suspected: It's legal for them to have sex at seventeen, but illegal for them to see it. He jokingly suggested they wear a blindfold during the act.

It can get a lot sillier in the US though, due to the potential for federal, state and local laws to interact. You end up with situations where it's perfectly legal for a couple to have vaginal sex, but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.

Not that I know if he was correct or not, but asking a police officer for legal advice is akin to asking a blind man for a description of the Mona Lisa.

The sad part is, while you may be able to prove innocence of any crime once you're in front of a judge, you still have that part where you get locked up in jail, lose your job (if you're unable to bail out), have the press label you nasty evil things (if the charge involves kids, drugs, or some other item considered to be a moral outrage), suffer financial damage defending yourself against it, etc.

That said, most cops I know of have enough of a working knowledge of the law (mostly by dealing with it daily)

* You don't define "back then", so...* before 1900, it was fully expected that half the children born would die of something before the age of five, and that only 1 in 5 would make it to puberty.* before 1800, puberty was pretty much considered to be adulthood insofar as sex was concerned in most nations and cultures - and before 1900, marrying at sixteen was considered normal. Children were expected to work as soon as they could gain enough mental acuity and strength to do so, be it on the family farm or in the factory. The only exception involved kids of more well-off parents, who were expected to get an education that would scare today's kids.* before 1700, the prohibitions on fornication (notice that sex for procreation isn't considered that) were put in place by church authorities, but was widely ignored unless it became politically expedient to pay attention to.

Some other cultural bits...

* Back then, what would be considered as teen sex usually happened after the teens were married, or in a house of prostitution. Girls were kept from "fornicating" because potential suitors by and large demanded a virgin bride. OTOH, many teen boys of affluent parents were encouraged by their fathers to visit a brothel, if only to get some experience in the matter.

* For most guys, you either did it with your wife, did it in a brothel, or you hadn't hit puberty yet. Any outliers in that data set usually involved adultery, which was harshly dealt with. What you had left was not enough to be statistically significant., and if you had sex with a girl but didn't marry her, she'd be the first one to scream to the authorities demanding marriage (else you either faced charges of rape, or an outright lynching by her family).

* Speaking of brothels, they were not only popular, but legal damned near everywhere (or at most studiously ignored by the local constabulary).

* The whole idea of banning fornication and and adultery revolved around the idea of lineage and property rights (your kid inherits the herds, land, or whatever - not some other guy's kid). This stretches back to the very historic concept of inheritance, and why most religions have that prohibition in place - as a concept, it is that damned old. But, you yourself mention the pragmatism as well.:)

As for today, kids are treasured far more highly, even to the point of legal worship over ideals that earlier civilizations really couldn't give a damn about. It is certainly wrong to harm a kid, to exploit one, or to molest one. This is common sense to a civilized modern human being. OTOH, there comes a point where at least biologically, a person is no longer a child, and the law has to allow for the adolescent to start taking steps into the world of adulthood. As long as it doesn't involve an adult taking advantage of that period of growth, the law should just leave the teenager the hell alone in that regard.

What about persons previously convicted? I doubt they're gonna retroactively "fix" those kids' lives.
It's still pretty fucking stupid to charge them in the first place.
At least it's a step in the right direction, albeit a small one...

Generally, when a penalty for a crime is lessened it is a lot easier to get your sentence reduced to the new levels. Or, if something is retroactively made legal you are supposed to be released from your punishment. Sometimes the justice system needs a little prodding from lawyers for this to actually work correctly.

That's the real problem with this country. Somewhere along the way we became infatuated with law and not justice. If anybody in the chain, from the police to the prosecutor to the judge, dare to actually question whether ruining somebody's life over something stupid is the right thing to do they are labeled as "activist" -- codeword for not believing that some politicians somewhere that you've never met and who know nothing about the incident in question know better than you what's right.

If we could trust our public servants, if we could trust that the police and prosecutors and judges would exhibit common sense and consider justice for all parties, including the accused, then I would support laws like this. It would allow, for example, two 16-year-olds to exchange naked pictures if they want to without fear of having their lives ruined by the state and without some truly absurd requirement that they report each other to the authorities, while at the same time providing for consequences if they break up and decide that an awesome way to hurt each other is to start posting those pictures all over Facebook.

We can't, of course. Laws like this are proof enough of that. "We recognize how terrible our last law was so we'll give you a warning before we ruin your life for the exact same thing." That's moderation in our society, and I see no signs of it changing. The right thinks this is the greatest thing ever and the left lacks the balls to stand up against it.

Public servants aren't allowed to exercise common sense because if they call it wrong they will be crucified by the media, the public and politicians. That's why everything's so heavy-handed: people are terrified of making a mistake and losing everything.

this is a very good reason for why jury nullification is so damned useful!

it lets people follow their hearts and not some hard-and-fast cold set of rules and if they made the right judgement call, DAMN THE LAW.

LAWS ARE GUIDELINES. stop being robots and value each decision. see if its worth following; not every law in every case, is.

encourage individual thinking. we are not robots and should stop acting like we have zero judgement ability in ourselves. in fact, the average person is just as qualified to judge issues of 'right and wrong' as any judge or laywer. its not hard. if its hard, you're doing it wrong.

in fact, the average person is just as qualified to judge issues of 'right and wrong' as any judge or laywer. its not hard. if its hard, you're doing it wrong

I have to disagree with you there. Ethics is extremely difficult because often times a logically sound argument can be made for either side of an issue. Oftentimes it requires a lot of nuance that a lot of people just don't understand. Only extremely basic moral issues have intrinsic answers that require little to no nuanced deliberation.

Think about it this way: the most common degree for a politician is law. Politicians are the ones who write (well, at least pass into law) these dumbass immoral pieces of l

Yes, it is. They are of age to legally consent to sex, but not legally able to consent to signing a model release. This leaves the gray area of taking a picture of a legal activity being illegal, possession of a picture of that legal activity is illegal, and it doesn't matter if its you taking a picture of yourself, it can still be a felony. They can consent to the acts photographed, so they are consenting. "adult" is meaningless now. The age at which the courts have decided someone can be tried as an adult is 12. Cigarettes at 18/19 (mostly 18, but more going to 19), voting at 18, porn at 18, drinking at 21. "Adult" is a meaningless tag used and abused for emotional responses, unrelated to logic and reason.

It's a bad idea to unscrew a lightbulb and stick your finger in the socket. Are we going to punish such stupidity as well? Perhaps we should leave such things for what they are: simple rules of life parents ought to teach to their children.

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

How? And if it were true, so what? If your naked picture is already out there on the internet and downloaded by thousands of people, who cares if one of those people happens to be a paedophile? Contrary to belief that is popular in certain circles, kiddy porn does not magically turn paedophiles into child molesters.

No, it's a stupid charge. Sexting is one of those many things a minor might do that should be handled by parents rather than judges and cops.What else should be charged as a misdemeanor and heard by a judge? Out after curfew? Not studying? Forgot to take out the trash again? Drinking from the milk carton?

There's a lot of good reasons not to sext, and I'll bet a heart to heart with mom or dad will convey them a lot more meaningfully than what the kids would no doubt call "a stupid lecture from some old man who's just pissed he can't get it up without a popsicle stick" or some such.

I would argue that if the so-called adults in the "justice" system were actual adults, there wouldn't need to be an exception either.

The heart to heart with Mom or Dad implies that children ever get to see their parents for 3 to 4 hours per night before going to bed. And even this may be occupied by homework, sports, dinner or doctors visits. Most parent's only know their children's names because they *gave* them the name in the first place. Much less what's going on in their lives to be able to connect for this 'heart to heart'. Raising children has devolved to dropping them off at the best state daycare-in-school-disguise they can mana

Sexting isn't "starving of attention". It's just a little sexual act, or to make others day a little bit more pleasureful, or for the any other reason adults too it. Teens, especially towards the adulthood, aren't as stupid as adult seem to think. People just usually draw that picture based on non-complete images, and things that stand out (the bad things).

We used to send nude pictures of ourselves with my gf when we were teen, and it was both for the little thrill, sexual pleasure but also for feeling love towards the other person. When we later broke up it never did cross my mind to spread them to internet. Things change, and while it hurts, you don't have to be an ass about it.

It's sometimes funny when you read about parents writings on the internet, especially slashdot, how it feels like they've completely forgotten how it was to be a teenager. Of course, you didn't have smartphones, but you had the equivalent stuff anyway.

And of course, I don't live in the US where showing a nipple on TV is a huge thing (but killing people and other violence is just fine), so maybe I'm more liberal because of that too, but you just have to accept that sexting is usual and is what teens do. Even if you didn't get to do that as a teen.

If there is at least one parent not working and staying home to be with the kids after school chances are they won't be starved for attention in the first place.

I am addressing the generic "you", so don't take this personally unless you need to: If parenting is the most important job, then you need to restructure your life to give your children the attention they need for proper development into adults, or to just fucking admit that you're a selfish fuck and you don't actually love your children, nor are they the most important thing in your life.

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

I sat thinking about this for a bit, and you know what?

I think that's actually a good thing.

Hell, if there were any nude pics of me from when I was 13, 14 years old, and the fact that a pedophile used them for wanking material instead of going out and actually hurting a child, even better.

There is a line between fantasy and action. I'm sure a lot of us have at times, in the dark of our own bedrooms, momentarily thought about what something would be like, something you wouldn't normally do - and not just because it's illegal. The thrill of the forbidden, the ability to let something play out inside your head. It doesn't mean that the next day you go out and actually DO that for real.

Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.

Except that for many purposes, they ARE adults. For example, if you're 16 in most US states you can legally participate in sex but if you take a picture of yourself doing so, now you're producing "child porn". And that's bad, because it's obviously SO damaging to yourself to take a picture of what you're doing.

Oh yeah, and forbidding kids to send pics of themselves around is much more effective than teaching them why it's a DUMB idea to do it in the first place. Kids are after all stupid and cannot follow rules if they understand the reason for their existence.

Why are people so convinced that kids are too stupid to understand laws? Just because "because I said so" is no satisfactory reason for them to follow them? Is it for you? Why do you follow the law against not killing someone? Most likely because you unders

So teenagers with breasts are not allowed to, well, be teenagers; but parents are still allowed to push their pre-teen kids into beauty contests complete with swimsuit competions and prostitute dress-ups? [dailymail.co.uk]

The types of people who villify sexting are the dirty old men-types who jack off to teen porn and pop boners watching their daughters play in the pool while being pissed that they couldn't have the same fun when they were younger, then spend the rest of their time praying for forgiveness and validating their perversions by projecting them onto others.

I don't know why you were modded down. I am not sure whether you are right in each and every detail but there is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in all attempts to suppress and control teenagers sex drives. I especially like the fact that all pictures have to be reported. I am sure that the number of job applicants for clerical police work will increase.

A) Why is this even an issue? Are there really that many kids out there sexting each other?
B) How exactly are the police finding out about this? Isn't it somewhat disturbing to think that the police have people dedicated to watching out for kids sexting each other?

A) What happens when you take the teenage libido and give them all camera phones? Then just stir in some of the drama typical of first relationships, when every crush feels like true love.
B) Usually someone eventually reports it.

A) Yes. Absolutely, yes. Welcome-to-the-internet-in-your-hand-at-a-whim, yes.B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said

B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said act... because they are/kids/.

Before, we charge kid with making, distributing, or simply receiving child pornography-- this has happened several times. Kids life is ruined.

The only way the system makes sense is if you turn it upside down, it's not to protect teenagers from sexually exploiting themselves, it's to keep the sexual teenagers from corrupting the "innocent" teenagers. The producers who generate the idea of teen porn are the worst, then those who help spread it next and finally all that seek it and contribute to a teen sex culture. All people that should be put away so the rest won't think of sex before they're 18. They've just realized penalties aren't working beca

It's ok. The police have set up official websites run by private contractors so that you can upload and register the pictures when you receive them, and there's even a facility for monitoring duplicates in case you accidentally upload something one of your fellow victims received already. To make it even easier to remember, the police have reserved a special domain called.XXX for those websites (three stick figures saying NO PICTURES!).

I'd be worse if they made one side of it legal and the other illegal. You send a sexting message to your gf, she can now get you charged later when she's your ex-gf. This way if you were both in on it you're both guilty, if you didn't want the sexting messages you have to report it. Which might be a good idea if someone sends you sexual messages you don't want anyway.

While your comment is meant to be humorous, the question of minors' First Amendment rights was a core aspect of the Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the California ban on violent video game sales to minors. For example, Scalia writes in footnote 3 of the decision [supremecourt.gov] (PDF):

JUSTICE THOMAS ignores the holding of Erznoznik, and denies that persons under 18 have any constitutional right to speak or be spoken to without their parents’ consent. He cites no case, state or federal, supporting this view, and to our knowledge there is none. Most of his dissent is devoted to the proposition that parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say. This is true enough. And it perhaps follows from this that the state has the power to enforce parental prohibitions — to require, for example, that the promoters of a rock concert exclude those minors whose parents have advised the promoters that their children are forbidden to attend. But it does not follow that the state has the power to prevent children from hearing or saying anything without their parents’ prior consent.

(In the 1975 Erznozick decision Scalia cites, the Court struck down a Jacksonville ordinance that banned drive-in movie theaters from showing films with naked breasts and buttocks. One argument was the protection of minors from such displays.)

I can see legal arguments being raised against anti-sexting laws based on this line of reasoning on the Court. There's now a pretty solid majority of First Amendment absolutists on the Court. It's not hard to imagine a law against teen sexting being struck down on the claim the both the sender and the receiver of such images have First Amendment rights.

Wee bit of a fifth amendment problem there... You can't compel anyone to report a goddamned thing if it might incriminate them.

No, but you can forgive them the crime of possession of child pornography if they do report it. The legislature could (and did, in the past) make any possession of child pornography a crime period -- instead they made it a crime but included an exception in the case. The greater power to ban it in all circumstances whatsoever ought to logically include the lesser power to ban it except when duly reported.

So yeah, the State cannot compel you to report a goddamned thing. On the other hand, they can brand you

To be fair, sexting often ends badly for kids. Of course when the hysterical minority who expect the government to solve every problem and the legislature which has nothing to do except constantly write new laws get together, things end up even worse.

I think it comes down to whether you think the law shapes society or society shapes the law. Most of us believe in individual freedom and the law should in very little degree dictate how others should live. The same fundamentalists who want to impose their religion on others by law are those most afraid to have another religion imposed on them. I guess the more you look on the law as a hammer, the harder it swings both ways. And if you then think there's a "right" way and a "wrong" way, well they'll be the

Most of us believe in individual freedom and the law should in very little degree dictate how others should live

I don't think that's really the case. Most of us are fairly comfortable, fond of strict rules, norms, and limitations of society which shaped us, in which we grew - and when we're quite content with it like that, we call it "freedom" (what, you forgot about strict rules, norms, and limitations? Yeah, exactly...)
It's largely a spectrum, not "most vs. fundamentalists" - the latter are largely just a bit further along (and they are typically given power, influence, thanks to how too many people believe the be

Levitical law does say it's ok (heck, it instructs it) to kill you daughter (or son) when she insults, curses her parents (possibly when, say, she can't go out on any dates?). Or when she has an extramarital affair, also when she was seduced by his father-in-law; or if she was tricked into marriage with a man already married to her mother. If she has contact with ghosts or spirits, if she gives her child to a competing deity, if she blasphemes.

There are a significant proportion of people for whom the status quo is more than good enough. House, food, basic entertainment, safety, the freedom to babble - most people don't want much. It might not be sustainable for more than another few decades, but for a good proportion of people mortality makes that irrelevant.

Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.

So let me get this straight: A 16 year old's girlfriend sends him a picture, he is guilty unless he reports her to the police?

First, bite my shiny metal ass.

Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.

Third, to expand on item one; holy shit are you a bunch of nasty assholes. Up until a circuit or the Supremes knock this foul law flat on its ass, it is going to put a lot of kids in really nasty quandaries about their obligations to the people they care about versus the state. Honestly, I figure it's safe to assume you will be creating thousands of anti-authoritarians in one stroke of your pen. I'm sure the year 2021 thanks you for the increase in civil disobedience you are creating.

Fourth, they're just body parts. They can't hurt you. How does it make sense to put kids into the ironically named "correctional system" because they received a picture of a breast? You think they are going to come out better people? That it will improve our future? You are bat-shit-looney if you believe that.

they are 100% guided by that so-called 'good book'. once the good book speaks, mind is closed and there's no hope of getting thru.

jesusland, usa. all over the fucking place, even in progressive states.

the 60's gave us a step forward. reagan and his cronies began the back-step into the middle ages again and other than a short pause (about 10 yrs or so ago) we've been marching more and more toward jesusland, usa.

He also wasn't all that happy with the money changers(Wall Street) as well, but the "Christians" tend to forget that part too, as the religious right extolls the virtues of people who crash the economy.

That's how child porn charges work and that's why this area of law desperately needs reform. You're guilty of possession of child porn if somebody sends you a photo whether or not you see it and worse whether or not you solicit the image. Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.

Supposedly, if you accidentally download some, you should report it to the FBI, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that.

This is classic Government-Think: destroying the village in order to save it.

It's disgusting.

Protecting our children from predators is in everyone's best interest, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the Constitution; but when we need to protect our children from their protectors, we have gone too far.

"They will make an arrest (looks good), seize the computers, and then the prosecutor will attempt to get the accused to plead guilty on reduced charges (once again it looks good). "

That is why plea-bargains are the worst kind of mistake ever invented as far a concepts in justice systems goes, side by side with the concept of a jury. The former is fundamentally flawed because it does not make sense to criminalize perjury, but at the same time allow for a suspect to confess to something he did not do in excha

Oh, you can take as many pictures of yourself as your want. You just can't distribute them. No, it still makes no fucking sense. Teens can get together, get naked, have sex no problem. Send a pic- big problem. I can't even think of a word that describes this lunacy properly enough. (no, lunacy does not go far enough)

It all sort of raises the question of why the state needs to be involved at all when teenagers send pictures of their private parts to each other. This is something the parents ought to deal with - it doesn't require the heavy hand of the justice system.

Like when kids in school get caught passing notes, and the teacher reads the note out loud in front of the class. Embarrassing for the note passers! Or when the local newspaper prints lists of folks arrested for drunk driving.

Bring back the village stock, I say!

Oh, and to answer Slashdot's question, "You are number 6! Who is number one?" . . .

a) whenever she sends you a nude pic, tell a non-existing e-mail address that looks similar to the local police about it.b) when she breaks up with you, suddenly notice your "typo" and send it to the real address.c) PROFIT - or rather, you've just reduced the number of boys she can break up with before it becomes a felony by one.

The US thinks it is the government's business what a teen sends their bf or gf on their cellphone. The US thinks that when you travel, you give up all privacy rights. The US thinks that getting angry with a border guard is a crime. The US assassinates its own citizens, believes in torture, and incarcerates people indefinitely without a trial. And I could go on. But the amazing thing about all of this is that the US thinks it is a shining example of freedom and democracy around the world. How insane is that?

Americans used to live in a great country, but honestly, that country is gone, now. It's a shame. They need to collectively get their heads out of their asses and learn to question the government, because it is not getting any better. I am not an American, and boy am I happy about that, because I live in a country that is actually an example of freedom and democracy, and that feels great.

I'm sorry I'm replying to myself, and so soon, but I still can't get over this. I just read TFA, and the word "privacy" appears nowhere. It is like nobody at CNN is even aware of the notion, and nobody reached by CNN. Everybody's just happy that there are three strikes now before the teen is sent to prison for having a sex life and a smart phone. This is beyond insane! Don't Americans have any rights, anymore, or are teens not Americans?

Parent is spot on. I've always lived in the USA and I've seen it happening around me; somehow I'm not affected by the foolishness as nearly everybody else around me is. It is easier to see this from the outside.

Its much worse to see this stuff happen 1st hand and have everybody think you are some sort of fanatic nut if you speak out, protest or do anything that is not sanctioned by some powerful group. ACTIVIST IS A BAD WORD. Fact and opinion are blurred; the Rove strategy of creating alternative realities is now pervasive. Admitting you spend your nights watching TV reality shows is normal; you are a freak if you do anything else. Being actually informed is no different than somebody using only sound bites on the crap TV news - in fact, they'll feel you are less informed because you don't know about the latest BS issues in the mainstream news or celebrity gossip. They'll also feel they understand something because they heard the sound bites. Being kept busy working, buying, and consuming there isn't much time; plus it seems that the only reason many issues can be followed is because they've discovered that heavy obfuscation isn't necessary; keeping secrets isn't necessary either-- just exploit information overload.

Even the language is warped; it is hard to even discuss many issues because there is too many errors to correct first. To avoid being dismissed as a nut or creating confusion one has to severely limit conversation to such pointlessly tiny baby boring steps and work long term towards an actual issue... if you bump into some sacred cow then emotional blocks kick in and its a whole other mess. For example, both sides have been calling Social Security an entitlement.

Crisis / Fear games - is how it often works here; people who are worried bury their heads in TV; they can't handle it. Plans are made up in advance; then crisis opportunities are created or the plans are adapted to an actual crisis which is usually amplified. A higher level of terrorism goes on continually. The trick is old as mankind but the techniques have been refined.

There need not be some big-brother thought police (although some are bent on that angle so its coming) they have working control over the populace that produces decent results all on its own. Like some sort of social virus, it'll run, spread, and mutate on its own allowing the benefits of crowd sourcing. This modern sophisticated approach will eventually allow for all the things authoritarians have done in the past but without the black and white simplicity that leads to their downfall. Its smart social engineering at work; 1984 mirrored advanced conventions of the day (1940s) but it is just a short book with just 1 approach and things have progressed. Americans are ironically quite conformist all on their own.

Every vengeful ex will be able to do so. And concerning the deletion. Once that is known a law will be come into use to keep all the messages send. You know, for the sake of the children and the terrorist.

how braindead would a teen have to be to delete and discourage such pictures ?or more like it, how fucking braindead must a grownup be to expect them to ?

if i received any picture like that (best phones we could get could barely send sms;) ), i can't even imagine what i'd have thought of some idiot who requested me to delete and discourage girls from sending such pics...

eh, i guess my jealousy of these things has not turned into a sickness, at least not as huge one as some puritans have it

Really? You think parents want police searching through their kids' phones looking at naked pictures? You think parents want their kids to face a very public trial over simple youthful indiscretions? You think parents want their kids fined and given a record simply because they didn't report to police that someone forwarded them some dirty pictures? If that's what you think parents want, then I thank God I'm not one of your children!

Grant was wrong. Nowadays, governments can do whatever they want to lawbreakers and not only will everyone around them be unsympathetic to their plight ("Well, you knew you weren't supposed to walk on the grass...now you're in for a beheading and it's your own fault") but even the lawbreakers will buy into that reasoning.